[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef3f98e1-6661-84ed-1bde-747b1330aba2@norik.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 07:42:44 +0100
From: Andrej Picej <andrej.picej@...ik.com>
To: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"linux-imx@....com" <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: watchdog: da9062: add watchdog
timeout mode
On 30. 11. 21 18:46, Adam Thomson wrote:
> On 30 November 2021 16:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>>>> Why does it need a value ? Why not just bool ?
>>>
>>> One argument might be that if the property isn't provided then the OTP
>>> configured value can persist without needing a FW change around this DT
>> binding.
>>>
>>> My belief though is that the majority of users would have this property set to 0
>>> by default in OTP, so a boolean would be OK I think here to enable watchdog
>>> shutdown.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you lost me.
>> dlg,wdt-sd = <0>;
>> is the current situation, and identical to not having the property in
>> the first place.
>> dlg,wdt-sd = <1>;
>> is new. I don't see the difference to
>> dlg,wdt-sd;
>> vs. not having the property at all (which is, again, the current situation).
>> Since it has to be backward compatible,
>> dlg,wdt-sd = <0>;
>> will always be identical to not having the property at all.
>> I can not find a situation where an integer would have any benefits over a
>> boolean.
>
> So if you have a binary DT binding, it's either there or it isn't which implies
> the bit to be set to 0/1 in this case. If you have a binding which has a value,
> there can be 3 outcomes in this discussion:
>
> 1) Binding = 0, bit is set to 0
> 2) Binding = 1, bit is set to 1
> 3) Binding NOT present in DT, OTP default value in HW remains untouched
>
> Say a platform updates to a later kernel version, but sticks with existing DT
> FW (i.e. the new boolean binding isn't present in FW), then the following could
> happen:
>
> 1) OTP for DA9061/2 has this bit set to 1, system expectation is that watchdog
> triggers SHUTDOWN.
> 2) New driver checks existance of 'dlg,wdt-sd' but it's obviously not there so
> assumes the bit should be set to 0 and does so
> 3) When the watchdog fires, it will no longer trigger SHUTDOWN but instead
> POWER-DOWN due to binary handling of new boolean binding.
>
This was my thinking exactly. I also first thought about boolean value,
but I then moved to the integer value of 0 or 1 after checking the OTP
default for this bit. The da9062 I'm working with has the bit set to 1
by default.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists